This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Baltimore on edge after arrestee's fatal spine injury

Originally Posted by j-mac

What is it about the SCOTUS ruling you're failing to get? The chase was legal.

There are other rulings and many circumstances re: probable cause. There's a very good chance that that one will not play when all circumstances are examined in court. It's certainly not the only ruling on the legitimacy of probable cause. It's one of the more 'flexible' ones due to so many variables and often manipulated.

Again, the case will get very intense legal scrutiny because of the publicity.

Originally Posted by Bucky

Welfare is a bad thing? It is essentially free money. It is not that bad.

Originally Posted by applejuicefool

A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

Re: Baltimore on edge after arrestee's fatal spine injury

The knife was found after they caught him, No probable cause mr apologist.

1. I provide accurate information, which is not being an apologist.
Saying such is just an indication of your own bias.

2. Your reply reveals that you do not know what you are talking about and haven't paid attention to the information provided.

It doesn't matter that is came after.

Lets walk through this. Again!

They had "reasonable suspicion" to give chase and detain.
They are allowed to search while he was detained.

That search produced an illegal weapon.
That weapon gave them "probable cause" to arrest. Period.

Even if the weapon hadn't been illegal (which it is) and they were simply mistaken in believing it to be, that mistake is still a good faith belief that it violated the law and still provided the necessary probable cause to arrest. Probable cause can still be based on a mistaken belief.
Do you or do you not understand this?

"They would slam on their brakes like every thousand feet, and to make sure that we slammed into something in the back," he said, recalling the night in 2012 that Baltimore police showed up at his house after a noise complaint.

The situation escalated quickly, according to court documents, and he and his wife, Chrissy Abbott, ended up on the ground, cuffed, headed for the back of a police wagon just like the one that transported Freddie Gray before he died.

"They throw you in and it's dark in there and so you can't really see anything," he said. "...I would hear Chrissy from the other side, slamming into the wall and just crying out."
She was on the other side of a metal partition.

"Every time he broke or hit on the brakes, I would slam forward and then he'd start driving again, slam back the other way," Abbott said. "I felt less than human, the way they treated you."

And?
Totally irrelevant to this van ride, as there is no evidence that it was a "rough/nickle ride". Only evidence of the opposite. A smooth ride.

Re: Baltimore on edge after arrestee's fatal spine injury[W:216]

Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo

The reason you gave for not being belted in is freedom to escape an emergency. You cite the handcuffs as additional reason for NOT being belted in, since a person wouldn't be able to free themselves from the seatbelt in case if an emergency.

This line of thought completely ignored the fact of this person being locked in the back of a van, unable to escape an emergency anyway.

Surely, you see the pointless nature of that argument, right?

Like I said, it's a double whammy. The detainee would have a better chance of escape from a fire for instance if not belted in.

Re: Baltimore on edge after arrestee's fatal spine injury[W:216]

Like I said, it's a double whammy. The detainee would have a better chance of escape from a fire for instance if not belted in.

You really think not being handcuffed makes them able to escape a locked police transport vehicle? That's what you're going with?

"Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
~Orwell, Politics and the English Language

Re: Baltimore on edge after arrestee's fatal spine injury[W:216]

Frankly speaking, if I was riding in the back of a van with my hands cuffed behind my back, I would not want to be buckled in. If there is an emergency, I would be unable to unbuckle myself

"Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
~Orwell, Politics and the English Language